Talk:Introduction to the Science of Hadith
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review
 | Introduction to the Science of Hadith was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Introduction to the Science of Hadith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Introduction to the Science of Hadith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria edit
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The next several chapters relate to the isnād, or chain of narration. Poor prose, "next several" is ungrammatical.A number of subsequent scholars followed Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ in the ordering of his book, from them: "from them"? Do you mean amongst them?From the scholars who spoke highly of the Introduction are: Again mis-use of "from"From the numerous editions of the Introduction in its original Arabic are two of the more reliable:[ and again- There are several bulleted lists, these need turning into prose, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)
Not done
- There are still several lists remaining. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- I assume good faith for all sources which are off-line
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- What is the relevance of the image File:Arab. Ms.JPG? It appears to be just a sample of arabic script and thus contrary to policy, see Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature
- There has been no response to this point. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- What is the relevance of the image File:Arab. Ms.JPG? It appears to be just a sample of arabic script and thus contrary to policy, see Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well there have been a few improvements but two important points remain outstanding so I am not listing this at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
